Dear America,
Last night, we saw Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump back to back, both of them charged with answering questions for an audience of military and related people. My impression was that the town-hall style sessions were to focus on military and defense policy. At the outset, the moderator, Matt Lauer of NBC's morning show, Today, exhorted both candidates to eschew personal attacks and focus on answering the questions, and both agreed, but neither kept his or her commitment. Setting that aside, Lauer tried to get answers to various questions without much more success than anyone else has had, and he tried to elicit candor from both Clinton and Trump with only varying degrees of success. I have to say that this event proved the rule, at least in politics: the more things change, the more they stay the same. Trump was as blustering, insubstantial, braggadocios and preposterous as he always is, and Clinton was as effusive in her understated way as ever, but as opposed to Trump, she seemed informed and persuasive in style, if not in substance as she always is. Both of them resorted to invidious comparison in the hope, and with the apparent intention, of separating themselves advantageously from one another, but Clinton seemed better armed in that battle than Trump. She was specific and fact driven while Trump did his usual dance, punctuating his more dubious claims with, "believe me." In the final analysis, the candidates neither gained nor lost anything in my opinion.. The Clinton supporters no doubt sat at home saying, "See!" and the Trump supporters were on their couches saying "That's what I'm talking about." But the independents were given the opportunity to make a side-by-side comparison of the two candidates, and it seems to me that Trump didn't fare too well.
All that emerged from the two half-hour long sessions, one with each candidate, is that they are two completely different kinds of people. Trump is a brassy construction worker pontificating about how the world would be if he were in control with no idea how he would make the changes if given the opportunity. His only argument is that he is good for his word, but all the evidence from his business career suggests just the opposite. Clinton, on the other hand, is the cerebral, savvy intellectual who can make a case for any point she avers, but cogent as her arguments may seem, they lack the detail that would give them a likelihood of manifestation if she ascended to power. To her credit, she declined to make a promise when pressed on defense against domestic terrorism, knowing that any such promise would be disingenuous no matter who made it, while Trump never shied away from claiming that he could do anything, just because of who he is...or more aptly, of who he wants us all to believe he is. I can't recall a candidate in the past 55 or 60 years during which I have been aware of politics who was shorter on solid ideas than Trump, and it showed last night. But on the other hand, I can't recall another candidate besides Clinton who had developed as great a facility for carrying so much baggage as she has. From White Water to her emails, Clinton has managed to surround herself with a fog of dubiety that would probably be politically lethal to another candidate, while Trump doesn't even carry his baggage. He just ignores it, leaving it for some apologist to tote from place to place. This is not the golden age of American politics. Trump carries himself with his chin leading as he walks into the room, much like Mussolini used to do while posturing with an imperious, subtle backward tilt of the head, and Clinton moves like the grandmother she is and evinces a slightly censorious attitude with a mouth turned down at the corners and a sort of rehearsed seriousness about her. Still, the choice is clear, and the independent, non-committed voters will make it.
On election day, we will be forced to choose as a nation whether we want to spend at least four years, and probably eight, being led by an autocrat who thinks that he is smarter than everyone else or a politician who knows how the system works and wants to work it. I'm not sure that either type of person would best serve the United States right now, but there is a tie-breaker. I believe that when it comes to policy, Clinton genuinely would prefer to err on the side of the common man while Trump would rather rely on those with money and power to trickle their largess down on us. Clinton would try to be firm but fair, but Trump would be inflexible and with the thought that toughness solves every problem...and it doesn't as is apparent from the fact that the Republicans control congress, both houses, but they can't get a bill to fund Zika prevention through. Trump would raise his high hand and do what he thought was best without regard for anyone else or rational considerations. Clinton would tend toward pragmatic consideration of the facts that prevail and do what she thought would work out best for all of us. Trump is a nouveau riche Babbitt while Clinton is a smooth talking Yalie with an intellectual appeal. Trump is erratic while Clinton is steady almost to the point of predictability. Clinton believes in the ivory tower while Trump believes in the Trump Tower. Clinton wants to govern. Trump wants to rule.
So, while my mind is made up and so is the mind of virtually every liberal or progressive, so is the mind of every conservative or reactionary. The only question is which of the character types the independent third of the electorate is going to choose, and at the moment, there is no indication either way. I just hope that the debates tell a more detailed story, because the more the independents know, the more they are likely to do the right thing.
Your friend,
Mike
Leave a comment